Regulation

07/28/2013

There are a plethora of complaints about our federal and state governments. I think we can ignore the complaints from those who believe government is too small or does not do enough, as those complaints are equivalent to lamenting that the level of damage is too low. On the other hand, reasonable complaints, those dealing with big spending and overreach, need to be addressed. The problem with addressing those complaints is that too often, those who complain don't really want to stop the actions they decry... or they seek to only limit those governmental oversteps that don't comport with their personal philosophies or desires.

Focusing on the federal government first, we must examine the means to a good government end. Perhaps we don't need to engage in root cause analysis, at least not initially, to stem the flow of waste, burden, and strangling regulation from those who enjoy the power and perks of federal elected office. I think the late Ronald Reagan was on the right track when he uttered the following:

Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.

07/24/2010

The tall woman with long brown hair walks up the front steps to her best friend's house and rings the bell. Her friend opens the door and the tall woman gives her a little hug before entering the premises. Out by the hedge something moves. The door closes and from behind the hedge crawls a slight man with a a badge and a stainless steel comb. The little man crawls with cat-like stealth around the side of the house and perches himself where he can see through the kitchen window. "Aha!" he softly proclaims. He touches the button on his headset and whispers, "The hen is in the fox-house. Repeat, the hen is in the fox-house!" In his headset, he hears a female voice, "maintain your position until backup arrives." "Roger!" is all the little man replies. The voice on the other end responds, "I know your name, just wait where you are!"

In the kitchen, the two friends have no idea that they are about to have their lives turned upside down. The tall woman sits and sips her General Foods International Coffee while her friend appears to be braiding her hair. The innocuous chatting does not sound like an exchange between two hardened criminals, but one can never really tell. The tall woman moves her hand to her purse and pulls it toward her. She reaches in and extracts a wrinkled ten dollar bill.

04/23/2010

The "Right Turn - Left Turn" series at Riverbender.com has been restarted and this week's topic is the "Fairness Doctrine".

A snip of my piece (Right Turn):

I so enjoy the naming conventions employed by the left as they attempt to exert their will on the electorate. Blatant seizures of power or trampling of liberties are much more palatable if given innocuous or even positive names. One example of this practice (oxymoron naming) is the “Fairness Doctrine”. For proponents of a return to life under such a doctrine, “fairness” is nowhere to be found in an honest review of their motivations.

Apparently, “fairness” as related to broadcasting over the airwaves means subjecting the listener to the propaganda of the left. Of course, the left cannot depend on market forces or an organic process to ensure its propaganda will be heard by those who tune in to terrestrial radio stations. It is not viewed as “fair” for conservative talk radio to be so prevalent, especially when the usurpations of the left suffer the effects of sunlight. It is not “fair” to allow the listening public to decide to what they wish to listen. It is not “fair” to expect liberal talk or the conveyance of the will of the liberals in power to stand or fall on its own.

And a bit of the Left Turn:

In the wake of the Citizens United recent U.S. Supreme Court case,there has been a resurgence in interest in the fairness doctrine. Now that corporations and unions can spend unlimited funds on political issues, there are concerns that the voices of the average citizen that does not have these powerful resources will be drowned out by powerful interests, well-healed lobbyists, and well-funded elites. The fairness doctrine requires that radio and television stations which operate on the public airwaves (as opposed to cable television and satellite radio), provide certain opportunities for opposing viewpoints. Conservatives historically bristle at the idea, preferring that the marketplace choose what ideas are given a public voice, and there is some merit to those concerns, but I respectfully disagree with them.

I propose that a limited version of the fairness doctrine can be an essential component to an enlightened representative democracy. We live in an era where the truth is often drowned out by well-orchestrated media campaigns. The strength of our nation depends upon a well-informed electorate, and the fairness doctrine, in a small way, serves that public goal. Even though there are more and more outlets for people to get their message out, we should not forget that with the relaxation of anti-trust rulings over the past twenty years, ownership of media outlets has been in large measure consolidated under fewer, but larger corporate umbrellas. The Rupert Murdoch's of the world are not, in my judgment, interested in providing “fair and balanced” news coverage, but rather are interested in using their media holdings to achieve political objectives. Perhaps you agree with their politics, but it does not add to the edification of the electorate, but rather it detracts from it. The fairness doctrine in a small way attempts (regardless of how inadequately) to balance the scales.

04/21/2010

Out of the darkness of Obama and Dimocrat rule, there is expected to arise a shining beacon of freedom and liberty. This bright light is to have its switch thrown on November 2, 2010 and by the end of January 2011, the circuit will be complete. The light will send the statists who remain, scurrying to the corners where they will seek nothing more than shelter as the light shines on in perpetuity!

Or not. Perhaps the stars are aligned for significant Republican gains in the midterm elections. If the Republican victors behave liberally, they will realign the stars for Dimocrat gains in the near future and the vicious cycle of American electoral politics will be perpetuated. Is it going to be different this time? Are the Republicans elected to save our society going to use the ... uhhh... umm... what is it?... umm... oh, the Constitution as a guide? Are they going to compare any legislation to which they affix their good names or for which they vote "Aye" to the Constitution to be sure it is within the LIMITS?

As we look toward November and the glorious delivery from statist hell, it might be useful to consider current affairs and wonder how different these situations will be once we are saved by the likes of Senator Mark Kirk and Senator Mike Castle.

04/03/2010

The Drudge Report is a great resource for some of the more interesting headlines around this world of ours. I was perusing them when one linked to the U.K. Times Online caught my eye. Apparently Giles Whittell, reporting from Washington, is engaged in a little greenie gloating over the recent iron-fisted trampling of American liberty... courtesy of the EPA.

You see, the ugly American is finally being put in his place. How appropriate that those who view us with disdain around the world, are finding inspiration to gleefully gloat over our misfortune and restriction at the hands of our own President? It would not be appropriate under normal circumstances, but given the associations of and demonstrated disdain our President has shown for his own country, this inspiration is fitting.

01/24/2010

Given the current political climate and the opportunity it has provided to deviate from political business as usual, it appears that this type of deviation may no longer be possible. Amidst outrage over the intrusion of big government, one would think the electorate might want to support conservatives. This appears to either not be the case or be lost on the politically powerful in the Republican Party. I honestly don't know which scenario carries more weight, but I am fairly certain that both are factors.

I suppose a third factor might be labeling or sales games that have warped the way candidates are viewed or identified and have made certain labels chic. For example, there are those who seem to think being a Republican means being a conservative. There also seems to be some sort of intellectual gold star awarded (self-awarded in some cases) to those who claim to be "moderate" or "independent".

I am asking, what does it mean to be a "moderate"? I am not claiming to have the answer, for if I did, I would be even more confused. How could having the answer create more confusion? If what appears to me to make up a "moderate", is indeed true, then the resulting ideal is some version of big government mush. What do "moderates" seek? Do "moderates" have set principles? How much of one man's liberty would "moderates" offer to others? What is a "moderate" view of individual rights (and accompanying responsibilities)? If anyone has answers or insights, please share them!

05/03/2009

Libiots incessantly moan about a lack of regulation in response to economic downturns, but won't admit to the negative consequences of excessive regulation. This may be attributed to the fact that some of their beloved regulations seem designed to grow dependence on government among those to whom the libiot politicians so disingenuously pander!

My wife and I recently refinanced our home... oh I know, banks aren't lending and we need nationalization of banks to free up credit and blah, blah, blah... and she pointed out a ridiculous bit of information on one of the forms.

When Evaluating Your Income, A Creditor May Not...

Refuse to consider public assistance income the same way as other income.

Discount income because of your sex or marital status. For example, a creditor cannot count a man’s salary at 100 percent and a woman’s at 75 percent. A creditor may not assume a woman of childbearing age will stop working to raise children.

Discount or refuse to consider income because it comes from part-time employment or pension, annuity, or retirement benefits programs.

Refuse to consider regular alimony, child support, or separate maintenance payments. A creditor may ask you to prove you have received this income consistently.

Isn't this disgusting? The Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 (amended in 1976) mandates that public assistance be considered as normal income by lenders! How dare liberal blow-hards pretend that the government does not force banks to make risky loans? This is an example of some supposedly well-intentioned piece of legislative manure, which if viewed through an intellectually honest lens, would encourage an individual to remain a welfare recipient.Why not, if public assistance is the same as any other source of income in the estimation of the most generous state?

Pop quiz, from where does public assistance come? No mister liberal, there is not a welfare fairy that refills the welfare reserve every night. Public assistance is wealth redistributed from those that work to those that do not. It is wealth taken from those that earn and given to those that don't. If public assistance is not temporary and rare, then it serves to grow the snowball of government dependence as it barrels (dragging the country along) toward socialist Hell.

Taxpayers are controlled via excessive regulation and confiscation of wealth while beneficiaries of the state are controlled via their reliance on the government. This type of regulation has no place in a free society. One can only hope the libiot dominance of our education system has not precluded the possibility of an awakening electorate. Man's natural desire for liberty has been so muted by seventy or eighty years of liberal "good works" in this country... hey that might explain how Barack Obama won the election! (That and the fact that states that allow Democrats to vote in Republican primaries, Charlie Crist, and Mike Huckabee stuck us with John McCain as a watered-down alternative.)

03/22/2009

Given the words and actions of the leader of the Democrat Party, and unfortunately of our imperiled nation, I believe this picture could accompany the above definition.

This face is more than a symbol for the Democrat Party, it is also a symbol of why we need a "party of no." There have been recent whining columns and lecturing monologues devoted to admonishing the Republican Party that being the "party of no" is not the way to go. I suspect that many of the lecturers are comfortable with a liberal governing style or at least believe that the key to winning is to promise lottery jackpots to the same groups that are courted by the masters of class warfare in the Democrat Party. It would appear that saying no to government intrusion, massive wealth redistribution, oppressive taxation, the killing of industry, and the weakening of our security equates to not having ideas!

I would suggest that a "party of no" is not a party without ideas, but a party that has its priorities in order! Not that "no" should always be the answer, however, in the current political Hell, "no" must be said first to combat the encroachment. The unfortunately elected reader of TOTUS has an ideology based agenda formed through indoctrination and has never had to be tempered by actually earning a living in the other than political world. The Chicago activist days were nothing more than political stepping stones... he is not from Chicago, he moved there for the sake of political expediency. Now he spews forth grand ideas designed to spread the misery and equalize outcomes. He uses the bully pulpit to force a radical agenda down the collective throat of a nation.

To complain that Republicans should not just say "no" is to accept that the party must enter into the give away game. It is to accept that our society has degraded so far that we are not capable of making individual decisions, of caring for ourselves, or of charitable giving. It is to assert that individual citizens are not smart enough to control their destinies.

If some lib were to propose a "cap and trade" scheme to cripple industry and redistribute wealth globally for the sake of punishing emitters of the gas humans naturally exhale and that plants need to live, we would require a "party of NO!"

Imagine if some libiot were to propose legislation that forced those who preserve life to instead take it or made it legally acceptable to dismember and remove a full term baby from his mother's womb or legalized the practice of killing the child of a child without notifying the parents of the pregnant child, we would require a "party of NO!" By the way, the sickness of the libiot is displayed in these assaults on parental notification. Parental consent is required to go on a field trip or play a sport, but not to undergo the baby butchering procedure?

Say some libtard floated a big labor pay-off plan to eliminate the use of private ballots in the decision to unionize and harm a company, we would need a "party of NO!"

What if a powerful lib teleprompter reader wanted to control the salaries of private business executives? Can I get a "party of NO?"

Pretend some really stupid, yet powerful libs desired to ruin the health care of Canadians by making health care in our country an imitation of theirs, complete with rationing and ridiculously long waiting lists, thus depriving them a free country to visit when they need a medical procedure. Pretend that this dastardly nationalization of health care wasn't just intended to keep Canadians out of our country, but would also be thrust upon the majority of we citizens! We would require a "party of HELL NO" to tell the libtard elite that the citizens of this country will not be forced into a health care system that doesn't work, that has some board of bureaucrats deciding whose life is worthy of sparing, and that drives medical professionals to seek other lines of work while they and their comfortably wealthy friends can afford medical tourism and other methods of private care.

When the governing party proposes anything that does not fall within the established guidelines of its particular level of government, we need a "party of NO." When the libiots attempt to create more victims and therefore dependents in order to gain a permanent iron fisted majority, we need a "party of NO!" When Barack Obama and his leftist ilk seek to suppress the voices of dissent and turn this great nation into Cuba or Venezuala, we need a "party of NO!"

Note to RINO's and "reformers" please fell free to whine or , better yet, join the party that fits your agenda.